Paul Portman

The tenant appealed two Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) eviction orders for rent arrears and personal use.

The Divisional Court had issued a stay of the eviction orders pending the appeal.

The landlord breached the stay order by enlisting the police to evict the tenant.

The court found the landlord in contempt, which he purged by paying $4,000 for the tenant's expenses and reinstating the tenant.

On the merits of the appeal, the court found no error of law or denial of procedural fairness in the LTB's virtual review hearing or its factual findings.

The appeal was dismissed and the eviction orders were restored, subject to a 30-day stay.

This endorsement addresses the quantum of costs following the dismissal of the Applicant Wife's motion for partition and sale of the matrimonial home.

The motion was dismissed because a prior consent order permitted the Respondent Husband to purchase the Applicant's interest.

The Respondent sought full recovery costs, citing the Applicant's unreasonable litigation conduct and an offer to settle.

The court found the Applicant's conduct unreasonable, including ignoring page limits, attempting to argue issues beyond time limits, misrepresenting hardship, and making unfounded allegations of fraud.

However, full recovery costs were denied because the Respondent's offer to settle was a final offer on equalization and not specific to the motion in question.

The Respondent was awarded partial indemnity costs of $5,500, inclusive of HST and disbursements, to be deducted from the Applicant's share of the matrimonial home.

The defendants brought a motion to stay or dismiss the action, arguing it was improperly commenced by a litigation guardian because the 90-year-old plaintiff had been assessed as capable of managing her property.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the plaintiff could manage basic property, the capacity assessor properly concluded she lacked the specific capacity to instruct counsel due to a stroke and the complexity of the litigation.

The court also dismissed the defendants' alternative motion to remove the litigation guardian and plaintiff's counsel for alleged conflicts of interest, finding no evidence that the litigation guardian was acting contrary to the plaintiff's best interests.

The applicant brought an application to recover money allegedly removed from her bank account by her brother.

The parties entered into a settlement agreement, and the applicant brought a motion for a final order confirming the consent to settle.

After the applicant filed the required additional materials and the consent executed by counsel of record, the court granted the order in accordance with the draft order.

Following a summary trial where the plaintiffs were completely successful and awarded damages of $191,429.88, the court determined the appropriate scale and quantum of costs.

The court rejected the defendants' argument that the $50,000 costs cap under Rule 76.12.1 applied, finding the action was commenced before the rule's effective date of January 1, 2020, despite later amendments.

The court declined the plaintiffs' request for full indemnity costs, maintaining its trial finding that substantial indemnity costs were appropriate due to the defendants' egregious and fraudulent conduct.

Costs were fixed at $95,000 for the main action and $25,000 for the construction lien action.

The applicant brought a motion to set aside Minutes of Settlement and order the sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home.

The applicant alleged the respondent materially misrepresented his assets prior to signing the Minutes.

The court found that the conflicting affidavit evidence regarding the respondent's assets could not be resolved on a short motion.

Furthermore, the respondent had complied with the Minutes by obtaining a mortgage commitment to buy out the applicant's interest.

The motion was dismissed with costs.

The Crawfords hired Shane Ross and his companies (Standard Building Contractors Limited and Standard Paving Limited) to rebuild their fire-damaged home.

Despite receiving significant insurance proceeds, the defendants performed minimal work and engaged in fraudulent conduct, including submitting forged engineering documents for a building permit.

The Crawfords terminated the contract and sought damages, return of funds, a permanent Mareva injunction, and a finding of contempt.

The defendants counterclaimed for work done and asserted a construction lien.

The court found that the defendants fundamentally breached the contract, engaged in deceptive and fraudulent conduct, and were in contempt of court for violating a prior Mareva injunction.

The court awarded the Crawfords judgment for the advanced funds (less minimal work value), punitive damages, and dismissed the construction lien, awarding damages under the Construction Act.

The Mareva injunction was made permanent and expanded.

The defendants in a residential construction dispute brought a motion for leave to issue a third party claim against a subcontractor and to adjourn the impending trial.

The plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing that a delay would cause them undue prejudice as they were living in a trailer with a toddler and expecting another child, while still paying a mortgage on their burnt-down house.

The court denied the motion, finding that the prejudice to the plaintiffs went well beyond mere inconvenience and outweighed the desirability of avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings, especially given the defendants' underwhelming explanation for the late request.

Following a ruling on cross-motions where the applicant was ordered to pay substantial indemnity costs, the court received written submissions on quantum.

The respondent sought $22,326.46, while the applicant argued for no costs or $2,500.

Applying the principles of reasonableness and proportionality under Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules, the court fixed costs at $15,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes, payable within 30 days.

The parties brought cross-motions regarding child access.

The applicant mother sought to hold the respondent father in contempt and vary access to supervised access, while the respondent sought to expand access or remedy the applicant's denial of access.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, noting a Children's Aid Society letter stating the children were not in need of protection and wished to see the respondent.

The court found neither party proved a material change in circumstances to vary the existing access orders.

However, the court found the applicant had denied access without a lawful basis and ordered her to comply immediately, awarding substantial indemnity costs to the respondent.

The plaintiffs sought to amend their statement of claim to limit their damages to $200,000 and to have the action proceed under the simplified procedure pursuant to Rule 76.

The defendants opposed the application of the simplified procedure, arguing prejudice due to discovery limits.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion, finding that the amended claim and the defendants' counterclaim both fell within the $200,000 limit, making the simplified procedure mandatory.

The court declined to apply the presumptive costs consequences under Rule 76.13(1), leaving the costs of the amendment to the discretion of the trial judge.

The applicant's application for the return of tools and equipment was dismissed.

The parties were unable to agree on costs, and the respondent sought $8,768.80 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court found the respondent was entirely successful and entitled to costs.

Applying the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court reduced the requested amount to reflect what an unsuccessful party could reasonably expect to pay, fixing costs at $7,000 payable by the applicant.

The applicant, a construction company, brought an urgent application for the return of tools and equipment from the respondent's property, a declaration that the construction contract was void, and damages.

The court dismissed the request for the return of property, finding the applicant failed to establish substantial grounds for ownership and that the balance of convenience favored the respondent.

The court also determined the matter was not suitable to proceed as an application due to material facts in dispute and the existence of a parallel action commenced by the respondent.

The application was dismissed in its entirety, without prejudice to the applicant to file a defence and counterclaim in the ongoing action.

The applicants, a senior couple, sought to bring an urgent application for leave to evict residential tenants, despite a provincial moratorium on evictions, and requested the court to grant an eviction order.

The court declined to schedule the proposed application, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to issue an initial eviction order for residential tenants.

Such jurisdiction rests exclusively with the Landlord and Tenant Board under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The court clarified that its role under Rule 60.17 is limited to providing directions for enforcing an *existing* eviction order, not creating one.

The Applicant brought an urgent 14B motion for child support and the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the issues insufficiently urgent to be heard during the COVID-19 court closure, which required "dire" financial circumstances.

The court noted that the parties had previously agreed to delay the sale of the home and that the Applicant had not complied with disclosure requirements.

This is a costs ruling following an emergency motion where the Respondent Father (RF) successfully obtained an order for the children to be re-enrolled in their original schools and for Newmarket to be the appropriate forum.

The RF sought over $14,000 in costs.

The Applicant Mother (AM) opposed the costs, arguing for proportionality and citing an inability to pay.

The court found the AM's unilateral decision to change schools unwarranted but deemed the RF's requested costs grossly disproportionate.

The AM was ordered to pay $3,500 in fixed costs to the RF, inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The parties reached a consent order regarding temporary relief and the matrimonial home prior to the return of a motion.

The applicant sought costs for the initial motion where she achieved partial success, while the respondent argued each party should bear their own costs.

The court awarded the applicant $3,000 in costs, noting her partial success on the contested motion before the previous judge.